If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by acorb, Jul 26, 2009.

  1. Platform 3

    Platform 3 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    They do have an Austerity that can pull 5 LMS coaches though.

    Sent from my SM-G770F using Tapatalk
     
    26D_M likes this.
  2. Pete Thornhill

    Pete Thornhill Resident of Nat Pres Staff Member Administrator Moderator Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    7,498
    Likes Received:
    5,455
    They will have a hall soon though.
    Soon there will only really be 7714, 813 & when completed 82045 in the SVR small engine brigade.
     
  3. Robin

    Robin Well-Known Member Friend

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Location:
    Stourbridge
    Quoting from SVR News some years ago and paraphrased of the SVR Wiki, "Following the opening to Bewdley in 1974, WD 193's limited water capacity became a factor. It was used mainly on the Hampton Loade "shuttles" and lightly loaded mid-week trains, serving as a standby locomotive for full line services between Bridgnorth and Bewdley." Basically what is happening now, except we're now running all the way to Kidderminster which is even more limiting water wise.
     
  4. Robin

    Robin Well-Known Member Friend

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Location:
    Stourbridge
    Maindy Hall was running this weekend. ;)
     
    Gareth, MattA, green five and 5 others like this.
  5. ruddingtonrsh56

    ruddingtonrsh56 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I find that an interessting judgement given that I believe Austerities have 1200 gallons capacity, which is the same as 7714 and 200 gallons more than 4566, yet both are/were used regularly on full line trains. Are Austerities/WD193 specifically really that much thirstier?
     
    Robert Heath No.6 likes this.
  6. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Antwerp used to manage 5 (6 at a pinch) over the 18 miles of the NYMR. Producing sufficient steam was its problem.
     
    MattA and LMS2968 like this.
  7. Andy Williams

    Andy Williams Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    908
    Occupation:
    Design Engineer
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    As someone who regularly fired and drove 193 Shropshire during its tenure on the SVR, I do not recall any issues with water capacity. A single trip Bridgnorth to Bewdley typically used around 500 gallons, with consumption increasing during the steam heat season. Jinty 47383 could easily manage 8 coaches for the full length of the line to Kidderminster with its 1200 gallon tank capacity, as could 4566 with its 1000 gallon tanks. 'Antwerp' on the NYMR could take 6 Mark 1's from Grosmont to Pickering without running out of water, so the SVR's more benign gradients and shorter length of line ought not to be an issue for an austerity o-6-0T.

    It has to said that 193 was probably not the finest example of its class, and was not universally liked by some of the SVR footplatemen. Its lack of use in the latter days of its SVR career probably had more to do with the ever increasing number of ex BR locos that were being returned to traffic from Barry condition.

    By all accounts, 'Welsh Guardsman' is proving popular with the modern day SVR crews, and is proving to be well up to the job.

    Andy
     
    Gareth, MattA, Johnme101 and 3 others like this.
  8. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The Austerity was meant to be the equivalent of Jinty but with a shorter wheelbase so should be able to do anything that a Jinty could do. Hunslet had built a batch of Jinties and I think that Hunslet based their 18” locos on them.
     
    Andy Williams likes this.
  9. Andy Williams

    Andy Williams Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    908
    Occupation:
    Design Engineer
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I never failed to be impressed by what "Antwerp' was capable of. It saw some pretty extensive use in the late 1970's to early 198o's when servicable locos were at a premium, and was called on to produce some prodigious feats of haulage. I thought that it steamed pretty well all things considered, but going up the bank with six on was a bit of a plod. I recall a very interesting trip with only one servicable injector and a blocked balance pipe on the tank. I think that the term used is 'Character Building".

    Andy
     
    26D_M and Chris86 like this.
  10. Robin

    Robin Well-Known Member Friend

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Location:
    Stourbridge
    I should start by saying that my comment was my own reading of the situation and not intended to represent the views of the SVR. I should also say that I don't work on them, I only ride behind them!

    I am sure it would be possible for an austerity to take 8 coaches for 16 miles. However according to Patrick's comment above, the powers that be have decided that it should be restricted to 150 tons. Obviously that could be because of water capacity or a host of other factors including coal (particularly at present), tractive effort, owner's restrictions, or a combination of these

    Regarding water, 4566 could take 8 over the full line, but in 2013 Ian Walker reported in SVR News that "4566 is restricted to 6 coaches, or 200 tons, due to water capacity; this means she is not worked to the limits of her design…". I seem to remember reading or hearing that the panniers at 1,200 gallons and even 1501 at 1,350 gallons don't normally (or aren't allowed to?) take full sets due to water concerns more than anything else – perhaps someone could confirm the actual limits in place for such locos if they aren't commercially sensitive?
     
  11. LMS2968

    LMS2968 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    5,084
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Lecturer retired: Archivist of Stanier Mogul Fund
    Location:
    Wigan
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I have to agree there, Andy. I too fired 193 in its SVR days and it wasn't an enjoyable experience. I did though regularly see No. 7 working at Bickershaw Colliery and was there when Fred Larner took eleven loaded MGR wagons from the loading point to the exchange sidings. It was a much shorter journey, but I have to admit to being impressed!
     
  12. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,099
    Likes Received:
    57,414
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think you can break that down into three separate questions:
    1. Should they be running 7 carriages on trains? That depends on loadings - it feels a lot to me for midweek, but ultimately I don't know the loadings. If, hypothetically, you need seven coaches at weekends but only, say, four midweek, there are competing opinions about whether the shunting to knock three off mid week is compensated by the lower mileage-based maintenance requirement on your carriages. It probably comes down to subtleties like do you have crew available for a shunt; do you have siding space; how you choose to organise your carriage maintenance (per rake or per carriage) etc
    2. Should they be running two trains midweek? Again, depends on loading, and where that loading comes from. If the bulk of your midweek passengers are coach parties, probably one out-and-back train is ideal. If the majority are individual travellers out for a day on the railway, greater frequency is preferable. On many railways (and the GWSR is quite a long one), a one-train timetable is a dead loss if you want to explore the railway (rather than just have a ride, maybe with a break at one end), but how many people mid-week wish to do so?
    3. Should they be running a Merchant Navy? Unfortunately, the cheapest loco to operate is the one you have available. If you just have just sunk £750k in a big overhaul (other figures are available), you don't save money by not using the loco, regardless of how much coal it might use. My anecdotal feeling about Bulleid pacifics (and I've only been on lightweights, not a Merchant navy) is that once lit up, they shouldn't necessarily take more coal to do the same work as a narrow firebox loco. The cost is that they take more to light up (which is primarily a function of boiler volume, i.e. how much hot water do you waste when you let them cool), which can be ameliorated to a degree by intelligent rostering - multiple days in continuous service.
    So, as usual, the answer to your question is "it's complicated". The difficulty in motive power policy (and related: timetable policy) is that it is frequently dependent on decisions taken years, possibly decades, ago. If the GWSR decided that it's optimum operation was two four coach trains each hauled by a Pannier or 45xx, it can't just magic that situation out of thin air if the locos available are a Merchant Navy and a Hall. If it felt it genuinely needed two seven coach trains at weekends, then it needs the big locos and ultimately it is cheaper to run them lightly-loaded mid week than let them cool and substitute with smaller locos, even if those were available.

    Tom
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2022
    acorb, MattA, green five and 7 others like this.
  13. alexl102

    alexl102 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    309
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Under BR Classifications, the J94 (i.e. WD Austerity tanks under LNER/BR ownership) was classified 4F & had a tractive effort of 23, 870 which actually makes it more powerful than a Jinty which was a 3F with a TE of 20,835 (though I do realise tractive effort isn't everything).
     
    JWKB likes this.
  14. ruddingtonrsh56

    ruddingtonrsh56 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    BR Freight classifications were more about how much a loco could brake than how much it could pull. Also doesn't take into account how much steam a loco can produce - You can have a loco with a small boiler and small firebox, but if you have it at a high max pressure, pair it to big cylinders and on a chassis with small driving wheels, the tractive effort calculation will suggest it's powerful. In reality such will the demands be on the boiler that sustained output of sufficient steam to maintain that power over a prolonged period will be difficult. That's even before you factor in the gains in efficiency from superheating and the like
     
  15. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    So apart from safely running its railway; nursing the railway through a pandemic; attracting multi-million grant funding; being nominated for a national tourist award; raising and spending under budget a £1.5m viaduct renovation; re-roofing and enhancing its loco works; running an expanded Christmas operation to capacity; running a record-breaking steam gala; consulting with its paid and volunteer workforce; consulting with its shareholders; raising a quarter of a million in new shares sales; running a huge diesel gala... what have the Romans ever done for us?
     
    RAB3L, robpalmer, mdewell and 6 others like this.
  16. Johnb

    Johnb Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    14,315
    Likes Received:
    16,391
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired, best job I've ever had
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    They certainly haven’t been consulting the volunteers I’ve spoken to and why are they still haemorrhaging membership and feel it necessary to spend good money on a shareholder survey?
     
  17. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    Simply incorrect. Between November 21 and 26th March 22 were tens of meetings to which all staff and volunteers were encouraged to attend, "...designed to unite the team, allowing everyone to have their say and contribute to the vision for the future." It was covered in the internal newsletters in November, January and March and in internal notices. My departmental head encouraged me to go. Literally hundreds took part. There were over 800 suggestions and “The work now begins to bring everything together and process it into a meaningful way forward. I will be reporting back in due course on the results and the next steps that we’ll be taking.”

    Not all took part - I chose not to - but all were encouraged to do so.

    I don't think they are, someone will have to confirm (I've cleared out my recent back copies of SVR News) but IIRC the recent issues show membership stabilised.

    There are lots of ideas aired on here why membership dropped - COVID, not running trains or running booked only trains, no footplate experiences with integral membership etc. Both you and I can only guess, but you don't have the evidence to make the charge stick that it's a result of 'Those at the top know[ing] nothing about running" the SVR.

    Because they promised to do so at the last AGM, over shareholder benefits.

    The charge was that "those at the top know nothing about running what was once the country’s premier steam railway" and while it's far from perfect and I don't agree with everything, I stand by the point those at the top have demonstrated they know a great deal about running the SVR for the reasons in #2375.

    I'm bound to say you've been supportive of those at the top in the WSR, I hold opposite views to yours.
     
    mdewell, acorb, MattA and 2 others like this.
  18. Robin

    Robin Well-Known Member Friend

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Location:
    Stourbridge
    Deleted
     
  19. Southernman99

    Southernman99 Member Friend

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    601
    Have those volunteers been approachable? There have been numerous efforts by the board and senior management to have open forums, like the strategy meetings, whilst focusing on the 5 year strategy. They were also forums to voice any other concerns people had. If volunteers have a problem, you go through the Guarantee company as your representative body.

    What alot of people seem to be struggling to get into their brains is the incumbent management havent had a "normal" operating season. 2 years of covid and now a coal supply issue. There simply hasnt been a normal time. Can we just get on with this year and see where we are in 12 months time?
     
    acorb, Bluenosejohn and D1039 like this.
  20. Andy Williams

    Andy Williams Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    908
    Occupation:
    Design Engineer
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The train weight restrictions that you mention were primarily put in place to reduce excessive mechanical wear on the smaller locomotives rather than being anything to do with water capacity. The current limit for both the 15xx and 57xx panniers is 250 tons, equivalent to eight LMS/GWR coaches or seven BR Mark 1/LNER coaches. Any footplate crew that can't manage 16 miles with a 57xx on less than 1200 gallons should perhaps start thinking about an alternative career.

    Andy
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2022
    MattA, Steve, D1039 and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page